Regarding Franko...

[Tricky]

What makes you assume that I have a "choice" to dispute it?

Atoms obey TLOP.
I am made of Atoms.
I obey TLOP.

Where is the "choice" coming from Trixy? Can you "choose" not to obey TLOP?

Why don't you demonstrate your "free will" since you are claiming to possess it?

I bet you will "choose" NOT to ...

LOL. I just picked a number between one and one hundred, using my free will. This concludes the demonstration.

 

[Upchurch]

Okay, since you're struggling, let me help you. (Appologies to Augustine)

Part 1: is LG the source of evil?

• 1. Omnibenevolent entities do nothing but good.
  2. LG is onmibenevolent
  3. Evil acts exist in the world.
  --------------------------------------
  4. By 1 & 2, LG does nothing but good.
  5. evil = ~good, :. LG is not the source of evil.

Part 2: Where does evil come from?

• 6. from Franko, humans perform evil acts due to their intrinsic nature
  --------------------------------------
  7. From 3 & 6, evil exists due to humans' intrinsic nature.

Part 3: Does LG have complete deterministic control over humans?

• 8. From 5, the LG does not compel humans to do evil.
  --------------------------------------
  9. From 6 & 8, humans do evil without the LG compelling them to do so.
  10. From 9, Humans can perform acts outside of the LG.
  11. from 10, :. The LG does not have complete deterministic control over humans.

So, we see that due to the fact that there is evil in the world, humans have an "intrinsic nature" that allows them to act outside of the LG to perform that evil.

Further, "intrinsic nature" has the same properties as "free will" (i.e. the ability to act in a non-deterministic fashion). Thus, the existance of LD "intrinsic nature" means the existance of non-LD "free will".

Upchurch

 

[Upchurch]

It's very similar to your evidence for an "Initial State" prior to the "Big Bang".

You see Upchurch ... there was no "Big Bang", and the reason there wasn't, is because (as you are fully aware) NOTHING can escape a singularity (like the Big Bang Singularity -- the mother of ALL singularities according to Pseudo-Materialism).

There was no "Big Bang", and there is no Universe. It's just YOU (the person reading this now) and Your imagination.

So.... your "inital state" is similar to the "initial state" that existed before the Big Bang, which you say didn't happen. Meaning that there is no "initial state"? (because, if there were, there would have been a Big Bang)

Me? ... I'm just a figment of your imagination ...

Ah, if only....

 

[Upchurch]

Just as a matter of clarification, Franko, are you saying that Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust?

Upchurch

 

[Franko]

Upchimp:
Okay, since you're struggling, let me help you.

Yes Upchimp – Yes. I am struggling to make sense of your whacky religious beliefs, and I desperately want to understand so I can become a “smart A-Theist” just like you.

Now will you please explain how the Universe escaped from the “Big Bang” singularity since according to YOU and Hawking (et al.) NOTHING can escape from a singularity?

Also, I thought that The Laws of Physics would break down inside a singularity. So if you are stuck in a singularity does that mean that Solipsism is True and YOU are the source of TLOP?

I mean … I have no evidence that I am a real person. I know that I am simply a figment of your imagination (so is the Wraith and everyone else). If this is FALSE, then why don’t you prove it is False? I would imagine it would be a very simple thing to do. I know I could do it … if only I were real …

 

[Upchurch]

Yes Upchurch – Yes. I am struggling to make sense of your whacky religious beliefs, and I desperately want to understand so I can become a “smart A-Theist” just like you.

I take it then that you didn't agree with my attempt to help. Could you then provide the logical evidence for LD intrinsic state?

Upchurch
edited for formating

 

[Franko]

Upchurch!!!

If you aren’t even going to bother to read the post, then what are you even doing in this thread? Haven’t you been warned about Trolling enough A-Theist? I realize that you idolize that idiot De-bungler, but seriously Upchimp the two of you are an embarrassment to even the A-Theists.

Could you then provide the logical evidence for LD intrinsic state?

On 1/15/2003 @ 12:08 pm I posted:

It's very similar to your evidence for an "Initial State" prior to the "Big Bang".

You do have evidence for an "Initial State" (i.e. universal "intrinsic nature") existing prior to the "Big Bang" -- don't you UpChimp?

So what's the problemo?

 

[Checkmite]

Upchurch, I think he wants you to define the current evidence for the "intial state", so he can repost it and say "yep, that's my evidence for LD".

 

[Salvius]

Now will you please explain how the Universe escaped from the “Big Bang” singularity since according to YOU and Hawking (et al.) NOTHING can escape from a singularity?

You mean, NOTHING except maybe Hawking radiation.

(And technically, it's the event horizon NOTHING, except maybe Hawking radiation, can escape from. This may or may not be an important distinction, depending on whether you believe naked singularities can exist or not).

Just to save anyone having to do their own Google search, here's the first link that popped up: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html

 

[whitefork]

Certainly though, if the universe evolved from a singularity, we're still inside it....

 

[Salvius]

Certainly though, if the universe evolved from a singularity, we're still inside it....

Well, yeah, Franko seems to be imagining the universe beginning as a black hole (rather than a singularity), with his imaginary POV on the outside looking in.

Which, of course, is not what big bang cosmology actually says. See, for example, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html

 

[Franko]

You mean, NOTHING except maybe Hawking radiation.

1) There isn’t any empirical evidence for “Black Holes”.
2) There is even less empirical evidence for “Hawking radiation”
3) Have you ever heard of “the Aether”?

(And technically, it's the event horizon NOTHING, except maybe Hawking radiation, can escape from.

Nothing can get past the event horizon that is correct. That is the point of no return. However once something crosses this threshold moving towards the singularity, then it is inevitably and inescapably pulled into the singularity.

It isn’t as if stuff goes back and fourth between the singularity and the event horizon once it gets inside a “black hole”. Once something gets inside the singularity … it stays there.

So how did we get out?

Maybe You didn’t … ?

 

[Salvius]

1) There isn’t any empirical evidence for “Black Holes”.
2) There is even less empirical evidence for “Hawking radiation”

Not entirely true (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_obsv.html), but even if it were, that would just mean there was only theoretical evidence. You know, the sort that uses logic and mathematics to reason from known principles. Sort of like:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upchurch:
Second, what evidence do you have that we have an intrinsic nature that cannot be determined by the LG?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Logical evidence.

 

[Upchurch]

1) There isn’t any empirical evidence for “Black Holes”.

well, no empirical evidence other than observable phenomena.

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/seuforum/explore/blackhole/L3/smallholes.htm

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2001/03/

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_obsv.html

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/active/smblack.html

http://apod.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010508.html

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast12jan_1.htm

edited to add, because it's just too easy:

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9801/07/black.hole/

http://www.seds.org/hst/M87Disk.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/blackhole_supernova_wg.html

http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/shst2/ferraresel.html

http://www.sonic.net/~nbs/projects/astro305-3/search/

http://www.aip.org/physnews/update/538-1.html

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~spac250/steve/

If that's not enough, I can go find another couple of dozen...

 

[Franko]

Upchurch,

1) If I post a bunch of links to Christian sites does that make Christianity True?
2) There are no "black holes" -- at least not in this universe. Ever heard of a Gravistar? The math works even better, the evidence is better, and they don't require TLOP to "break down".

... ohhh, that right ... you a-Theists are prohibited from reading certain texts which contradict your religious beliefs ...

 

[Aardvark_DK]

Ever heard of a Gravistar?

*jumps up and down*

Me me me me! I know! It's that old arcade game that's a bit like, errr, that game where you shoot meteors*... Right?

Or is that Gravitar?


Edit: *Asteroids.

 

[Loki]

Franko,

"Intrinsic Nature" just means "Initial State".

So gravitons have (had?) an "initial state". Since "initial" is a term/phrase involving time, we can conclude that there was a time before gravitons? So what creates gravitons? Us gravitons all whirl around in the Abyss waiting for the LG to fish us out and plonk us into this universe - how did we get into the Abyss?

Let me see if I've got this right - there's a graviton manufacturing process somewhere, and the Universe is the quality control department? So what exactly is this manufaturing plant - is it the LG? And why is it doing such a poor job in the initial construction - perhaps gravitons are like LCD monitors, and have a high failure rate in manufacturing?

 

[Upchurch]

1) If I post a bunch of links to Christian sites does that make Christianity True?

You said there was no evidence for black holes, I showed you all the evidence I could short of sitting your rear end down at a radio telescope.

2) There are no "black holes" -- at least not in this universe.

Ah, this is eluding to your unexplained alternative theory of gravity. Care to elaborate?

Ever heard of a Gravistar? The math works even better, the evidence is better, and they don't require TLOP to "break down".

Actually, I haven't. I did a web search and more than half of the hits I got were for a band. There is some mention of it, but nothing I saw said it was a replacement for the black hole theory and nowhere did I see any example of the justification for the theory. Odd for something that has better evidence... As uncharecteristic as it may be, do you think you could post a link to back this up?

You do realize that when physicists say that the laws of physics "break down" inside a black hole, they are refering to the language used by humans to desribe the nature of the universe and not the nature of the universe itself?

Upchurch

 

[Upchurch]

*jumps up and down*

Me me me me! I know! It's that old arcade game that's a bit like, errr, that game where you shoot meteors... Right?

Or is that Gravitar?

Well, the math would be easier...

Upchurch

 

[Upchurch]

Okay, I did find this :

GRAVISTAR
A gravastar is an extremely dense, cold, dark, thick-shelled object that contains springy, oddly-behaving space inside it. A gravistar is the remnant of a dying star that has imploded; it has many similarities to a black hole, but emits far brighter X-rays than a black hole. Gravistars were theorized to exist in 2002 by Emil Mottola of Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, and Pawel Mazur of the University of South Carolina, Columbia. The existence of gravistars is not universally accepted.

edited to add:
Actually have the names of the people involved, I was able to find out more infromation about the Gravistar theory (but no actual math), which is really just a modification of black hole thoery. Regardless, what happens outside the event horizen would be nearly identical, they're just trying to improve the physics for what is going on inside the event horizen based on current quantum theory.

The theory was only introduced last year and it looks like it is still under review. It's a long way from being established fact.

Upchurch